Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Was forgiveness of sins viewed as a divine prerogative, uniquely reserved for the God of Israel in early Judaism? While some scholars think this was the case, others have questioned or qualified such a view, arguing that other figures, such as priests, prophets, various messianic figures, or angels, could forgive sins in the place of God. This article surveys and critiques the main evidence that has been put forward to demonstrate this. The outcome is mainly negative. With the possible exception of one or two passages which may ascribe the authority to pardon sin to the Angel of YHWH, no firm evidence can be found which demonstrates that other figures than God forgave sins. Various strands of early Judaism conceived of human and angelic agents who interceded on behalf of others, expiated sin and mediated forgiveness from God, but they all seem to have shared the view that forgiveness is divine prerogative.

This article considers the history of the transmission of the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel and the ways in which the text was divided or not divided into segments by commentators (e.g. Ptolemy, Heracleon, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Philoxenus), liturgical systems and the scribes of early manuscripts (e.g. Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Greek, Latin, Syriac). There is then investigation of the division of the text in the period of print from 1495 (the first printing of Jn 1.1-14) to the present. It is found that systems that regarded Jn 1.1-5, 1-14, or 1-17 as a unit preceded those that regarded 1.1-18 as a unit and that these earlier analyses each have distinct exegetical advantages over the common modern position of viewing 1.1-18 as a unit. The reasons for the currently preferred division and its exegetical consequences are explored with the conclusion that Jn 1.1-18 should not be regarded as the prologue of the Fourth Gospel.

This article attempts to address a certain lack of interest in the senses in New Testament studies by conducting a sensory survey of the Gospel of Mark. Informed by cross-cultural anthropology of the senses, the Gospel of Mark is revealed as an audio-centric text in which hearing is the pre-eminent sense and deafness the gravest sensory impairment. Mark’s ambivalence surrounding the faculty of sight is viewed as a resistance to the pre-eminence of the visual within imperial propaganda.

This review of Engberg-Pedersen’s important new book questions its thesis that Paul, like the Stoics, understood the pneuma to be a physical substance characteristic of the heavenly bodies in the cosmos. For all their similarities in numerous details, there seem to be substantial differences between Pauline and Stoic theology concerning the relationship between God and the world, as seen in the way Paul articulates the character of the ‘new creation’ instituted by the Christ-event.

Troels Engberg-Pedersen offers ‘a coherent reading of Paul that reflects the best available conceptual tools for understanding the world, both his and ours’ (6). These tools include ancient Stoicism, which illuminates the material character of pneuma, and the writings of contemporary theorists Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu, which provide heuristic keys to the interpretation of Paul. This response offers sustained analysis followed by three substantive critiques of Engberg-Pedersen’s use of Stoicism to explain Pauline pneumatology. (1) The Stoic models he constructs do not adequately explain Pauline pneumatology. (2) Stoic models that do not align with his conception of pneuma in Stoicism are neglected. (3) Neglected as well are key texts from Paul’s Jewish heritage—Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls—though in principle Engberg-Pedersen acknowledges the indispensability of this heritage.

A rejoinder to the articles of Barclay and Levison reviewing Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit.